support. Why not acquiesce at once in the language of unbiassed translators, whom we can understand as readily as we can the authors of other books, rather than perplex ourselves with an analysis of the original writings? Does salvation rest on the correctness of the expositor?" All this, I repeat, may be fluently alleged-and it may as promptly be answered by a reference to the government of God and the frame of man. If Dr. Bruce's position be solid, we have only to embrace and hold fast

"All that the nurse and all the priest

has taught,"

and utterly to dissever scholarship and care and enlightened judgment from theological pursuits.-Let us now pass from this very estimable person to divines of a more distant age; from the text of the Scriptures to a rule which should not be neglected in the translation of them.

The rule is, that the diligence of the translator should be unremitted; few if any difficulties being insuperable by such diligence. Let him, therefore, be as minutely accurate as possible.

In the preface to the larger copies of the Received Version the following singular passage occurs:

it cannot be dissembled that, partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them [the Scriptures] for their every-day plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion, to crave the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer, and, lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, &c. &c. it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence."

Beyond question, it is a general principle of the Divine administration, that man's assiduity, and his consciousness of dependence, shall be heightened by the difficulties accompanying his pursuits. Were nothing

further than a truth so obvious and so important conveyed by the language which I have copied, I should have only to adopt it, with unqualified and

cordial assent. Yet King James's translators evidently mean to say, that obscurities in the style of the Bible are specially ordained by Heaven, for this purpose. On what authority do they make the statement? Does the Bible itself contain any such intimation? Or do they appeal to the reason of the case? But are not the records of revelation designed to be understood? At the same time, are they not written in the dialects of their several countries and ages? Why then resort to so infirm and equivocal a principle, by of verbal difficulties, when those diffiway of accounting for the existence culties arise, in the main, from the date and nature of the languages? Nor are such perplexities insurmountable: many of them have vanished before the increased erudition and diligence of theological scholars; and we may with justice conclude that, in the progress of years, this will be the fate of most of the remainder. What we chiefly need, is a larger number of well qualified and unremitting labourers.

In some instances, spurious humility, which, in truth, is conceit and selfimportance, may be nourished by the exceptionable sentiment that I have quoted. A scriptural phrase, for example, baffles the inquiries, penetration and knowledge of a young student in divinity; though, as we might well suppose, its meaning has been clear to critics of sound and tried judgment, and of the greatest name. It has embarrassed his faculties (which, really, can be no disgrace to him): and hence he concludes that it was left obscure, in order to embarrass every man's faculties, and to humble human pride! Who does not perceive that such an argument is utterly inconsequential; that such a decision bespeaks any thing but diffidence?

Let a few words be added on minute accuracy in the interpretation of the Sacred Volume.

This accuracy, employed on single passages and terms, is far preferable to what some divines are fond of call

Other causes might, no doubt, be

assigned. Among these is a fondness of allegorical interpretation upon which subject the late Mr. Conybeare's lectures well deserve pérusal, though they may not always command assent.

ing the analogy of faith; by which fxred, and made a standard for the expression they intend creed already expositor. Such a method of investigating the Scriptures, is synthetic, or systematical, and should, I presume, be, as much as possible, discouraged. If it be fair and lawful in regard to one set of theologians, it is fair and lawful for all; or rather, it is universally fallacious and inadmissible. Should it be alleged, that the Bible is consistent with itself,-this consistency, I answer, cannot be effectually ascertained, except by the aid of analysis. The just order, is, first, to examine the texts themselves; afterwards, to compare them with each other; and, lastly, to illustrate those which are obscure by those which are perspicuous. A late excellent and accomplished individual was "no friend to very minute verbal criticism" in scriptural studies. He did not look in the sacred writers for "that precision and accuracy in the use of words, which are to be found only in the most accurate and philosophical au thors." If, indeed, he adverted to words purely Greek and classical, he was correct in his expectation; though even in the "Greek of the Synagogue" there appears to be a reasonable degree of accuracy and precision-a degree of both sufficient for all the general purposes of the critic. In interpreting passages of doubtful import, Mr. Wood trusted for assistance rather to comprehensive principles, than to verbal inquiries. He was qua lified for making application to both: and in such hands as his both may safely and advantageously be employed. Not so as to inferior men: and it is only where verbal investigation affords a very scanty help, that recourse should be had to considerations of another kind. The rules, for instance, of Biblical Criticism, and even those of interpretation, are more definite than the opinions of the several classes of Christians respecting “the general nature and design of Revelation."

N.

SIR,

do wish to

A of Unitarianism aided by casua gle erroneous interpretation of Scripture, (any more than by the "disingenuous artifices" of any Unitarian preachers,) I was not sorry to find that the Reviewer of Dr. Spry's Two Sermons in your last Number, in treating of Hebrews i. 2, has rejected the interpretation of Grotius, which, however, as the interpretation of so great a man, Valkenaer justly thinks ought to be modestly refuted. It is an interpretation to which I never could subscribe, as I do not remember in the course of my reading to have met with a passage in which dia with the genitive must necessarily be rendered propter, though I think I have seen one or two in which it might be rendered indifferently by propter or per. In the passage produced by the Reviewer from Thucydides, L. v. § 53, dia does not govern re Oupates, but Ty pay which follows. In L. vi. § 57, I have always thought that δι όνπερ, which is the reading of several manuscripts, ought to be restored. It is at length adopted in the useful edition of Haack, and will, I doubt not, be retained in the edition publishing by Poppo. Of Josephus I can say nothing positively. I think that he uses αφικνείσθαι δια λόγων, which I suspect to be one of the expressions referred to by the Reviewer. This expression, meaning to hold a conversation, is analogous to d'expos apieveica and many others in the best Greek authors. It is used by Euripides in the Medea. Vide desideratissimi Elmsleii notam ad v. 842. But whatever may be the justice of

him, by Wellbeloved, pp. 26, 27.

refuted, and, as it falls on no one individually, may be supposed to be applicable to many.

You must have heard of Infidel doctrines and books, but I do not know any Antichristian creed which has been so deceitfully introduced, and so systematically taught, as that which is contained in a work called "Hours of Devotion," first published in 1807, in eight volumes, in German, and which has gone through ten editions, and been translated into French and Dauish. It is with many their Bible-the instrument to promote true Christianity! I will give only one sentence as a specimen.

In a chapter respecting the different religions, the author says, "The Jew, who cries with devotion in his synagogue to God his Father; the Turk, who, ac cording to the doctrine of his supposed prophet, in the Mosques of the East, bends his forehead to the dust before the Omnipresent; the ignorant Heathen, who, for want of better instruction, elevates his hands to an idol, at the same time that he fervently prays to the corruptible dust, he does not less direct his prayer to the Most High God-these are all sacred to me: they have all one God, to whom they cry, Allah,' Abba,' 'Father.' They look, with me, with tranquil expectation to the same eternity."

er

The contents of this work are Christianity without Christ. Deceitful it is, for it speaks seemingly with the greatest reverence of the Redeemer, the Saviour, the Son of God: but even as this only comes to be a peculiar phraseology, so it

makes all the positive declarations of the Bible to be nothing more than metaphors, figures, parables, elegant flourishes, oriental language! The doctrine of a prince the day of judgment, a dream of ignorant of darkness, the author calls blasphemymen! And this Autichristian religion is taught from the pulpits in the universities and in the schools of the continent.

Critical Synopsis of the Monthly Repository for July, 1824.

REPORT ONNITARIAN AS

SOCIATION. In my notice of this Association last month, I find I mistook its character and object. In the present Report, its title is carried out at full length-" for protecting the Civil Rights of Unitarians." My few remarks would probably have been more applicable to such an institution as "The Unitarian Fund."

We have been laughed at for using in America the word "influential." I should suppose it was employed in this report by good authority.

Should Unitarianism ever gain the ascendancy in England (and why may it not, even though it be as erroneous as was Henry the Seventh's or Oliver Cromwell's religion?) by all that is Christian in practice, generous in feeling, and just and right in government, do not treat your Trinitarian minority as the majority now have treated you. Do not, by a vote of 105 to 66 in your House of Lords, insist that Mr. Belsham shall marry the Bishop of St. David's or some juvenile Quarterly Reviewer. Do not mock a zealous young Calvinistic couple at the most moving period of their lives with Arian and Humanitarian texts quoted by a cold-blooded Unitarian dignitary. How it would shock them to be obliged to listen to the following form"Hear what the man Christ Jesus saith, That which God hath joined together," &c. !

On what principle are four of the Association's Committee made ineligible for one year, if they have all attended to their duties with requisite assiduity and punctuality? And why must any proposed alterations be first notified to the Committee?

I am anxious to see what the united energies of all your Unitarian Societies will accomplish. Must not the subscriptions be raised, and thus cut off a large number of associates who

are at present able to contribute only a particular sum to their favourite subdivided pursuit? You must either do great things after this new proposed movement, or the whole Unitarian interest will be likely to sink in character and importance. It will be a critical effort. Will not the objects in view be too multifarious and unwieldy for one body? There must be Sub-committees but it is impertinent for me to be recommending such things.

Letter from Dr. Doyle. To say nothing of a little dimness in the general outline of this writer's positions, his plan seems to me to be absolutely crazy.

G. B. W. on Dr. Priestley's Opinions, has pursued a very neat, and I imagine, successful argument.

Mrs. Hughes on Unitarian Education. I agree with these suggestions. I never think the better of a person, who says that he teaches his children no religious opinions.

Remarks on Matt. xix. 23. Good. Dr. Hartley's Letter to his Sister, This letter must have been written not long after the author's correspondence with Dr. Priestley alluded to in p. 389. If it were written before that correspondence, the argument of G. B. W. will want support, since in that case Hartley must have already entertained the sentiments which yet Priestley says, he "made appear to Hartley's satisfaction." It would be nearly decisive of their question, if the disputants on this subject in the Repository could ascertain the date of the letter.

Judge Hale, &c. I like this correspondent's modification of the maxim De mortuis. The original form of it savours of superstition.

Correspondence between an Unitarian and a Calvinist.

This is the most serious, impassioned, yet argumentative letter that the Unitarian has thus far written. His words, sentiments, and paragraphs flow on in a strain that reminds one of the simple entrainante eloquence of Rousseau.

I am sorry to meet with a puerile argument in a series of such masterly reasoning; yet I cannot otherwise regard the writer's attempt to prove that evil persons in the future state ought to be considered children of

men, because Abraham called Dives by the appellation child! The whole passage seems like a word-catching, punning prolusion, introduced to overthrow the reader's gravity, rather than strengthen his conviction. I pretend not to instruct this writer in a poiut of criticism; and therefore presume he must only have forgotten for a moment that children of men is a Hebraisin, equivalent simply to men. It would be useless to urge other critical considerations which exist to the same purpose.

Ought he not to have stopped an instant near the beginning of his letter, where he maintains that "those only shall be saved who do the will of the Father," and have explained how he regards the proposition quoted as consistent with his general belief on the subject? What, too, correspondently with the rest of the letter, does he mean near the close by saying that he is far from being confident as to his final preservation?

Mr. Le Grice on Consistency. This writer incorrectly compares an Unitarian's taking the sacrament to "perjury." The perjurer tells not the world of his mental reservation, nor protests every where aloud against the tyranny which compels him to swear. If he did, his oath would not be taken. So that our reasoner commits the illogical fault of borrowing an illustration from an unanalogous, or rather, a morally impossible case.

"To say that Unitarians may be members of our Church,seems a strange assertion." I can tell you of a fact still stranger. It is, that your Church and Government set up claims which compel honourable and high-minded men to torture themselves into a specious, distressing, and, alas! assailable code of ethics.

"What need of the repeal of any test?" What need of any test?

"If such a system were to prevail, we should trust no one, we should respect no one." Believe it not. It would be the very thing aimed at by the law-a feigned outward consent. All things would go on so quietly, so smoothly. The Church would bear such unresisting sway. You do not make yourselves very anxious and prying concerning the sincerity of more than suspected unbelievers.

"Hooper and Ridley might with

the same consistency have continued in the Church of Rome."

But Unitarians do not pretend that they can be consistent, unless they accompany their compliance with opposite protestations. Had Hooper and Ridley made such an open protest, while complying with Mary's laws, they would have been burned up. They chose to be burned for something worth while.

"The shrewdness of vulgar minds is quick.” And therefore there are many more cunning, compliant members of the Church of England, than easy, recluse, studious, conscientious, well-supported theologians are apt to

suspect.

But all this, I allow, is only nibbling at the writer's main reasoning, and might be carried on through several other passages of his letter, which are open to cursory remark.

If I could follow up Mr. Le Grice's strongly and ably defended argument, and shew (which I am quite willing to suppose I could not) that it is absolutely untenable, it might prove a much greater disservice to Unitarians and other Nonconformists than would at first thought be imagined. Let him exhibit the inconsistency of conforming Unitarians in its most glaring and convincing light. Let him drive every one of them from his pale. Let the principle of his argument be carried out into its whole legitimate scope and practical effect-and what will become of the Church of England? For, be it remembered, that not Unitarians alone must secede in order to preserve their consistency. Every man in the three kingdoms, who cannot yield a full, unqualified, explicit assent to each of the Thirtynine Articles-every man who cannot approve cordially of the whole system of rites and ceremonies by law established, must stand aloof, and add a new recruit to the ranks of dissent. If Mr. Le Grice's principle were strictly acted upon, it would in the first place cut off at one blow from the Church all those who regard the Thirty-nine Articles as articles only of peace, and not of positive assent. In the next place, it would huddle together in a separate throng, the not innumerous mass of sceptics and concealed infidels. In the third place, it would arouse to critical examination and re

flection, and therefore, as we may judge from former experience, in many cases to consequent dissent, that vast herd of unthinking church-goers, who comply with their country's religion, from habit, from patriotism, from convenience, from fashion, from sentiment, and a long catalogue of other acquiescing and self-complacent motives. And after a process so sifting as this, would not Mr. Le Grice's remnant be, like Isaiah's, "very small and feeble"? Perhaps he would prefer a result so pure and unmingled. True. But what then will become of his national religion? Perhaps, however, he would not fear lest his church should constitute a triumphant majority, even though it were to undergo the most jealous and extensive expurgation. He is of course much better acquainted with the subject than myself; yet I have imbibed, I can scarcely enumerate from how many quarters, an entirely different opinion. Our zealous ecclesiastic would not have even a child of an Unitarian exposed to the benign influences of the Establishment. Manfully does he argue the general cause of Unitarians. Indeed, it is a new thing under the sun, and a more remarkable "feature of the age" than Mr. Le Grice pointed out in his June communication, that a member of the Church of England should undertake to winnow his mo ther-pale from every particle of inconsistency or other exceptionable chaff which the winds may have lodged within it. Let him go on, and he will have the prayers and good wishes of every Dissenter in the realm. He is no seeker, I presume, of ecclesiastical promotion. The powers that be, would scarcely thank him for introducing a wedge, which, if allowed fairly to operate, must very soon overthrow the Church from its lowest foundations.

Mr. J. P. Smith in Reply to Chenevière. How much soever M. Chenevière may be in the wrong, and I have formerly allowed that there were some unjustifiable things in his Defence, yet it is very evident Mr. Smith is not the man to take him to task. Such an exhibition of prejudice and irritation I have scarcely ever witnessed. How imprudently this writer lays himself open at almost every sentence! We have an author in America, be